bullets13

I think this should be more than enough to convince trump supporters to change their minds about him (sarcasm)

"President Obama authorized the mission." Well, at least not ALL of his last few weeks in office has been an unpatriotic, unmitigated disaster.

Good deal!

I'd say cnn and fox only. Both obviously lean way in opposite directions, but both generally post real stories. Their motives for publishing may be up for debate, but they generally talk about things that really happened.

Personally, I do, especially when someone posts it as fact. I suppose if you said "I read this, and it sounds like it may be true. what are your thoughts?", that might okay. It's funny how hot under the collar some get on here when big girl posts some article that's clearly a biased piece of propaganda from a blatantly far left "news outlet" and presents it as fact. Everyone piles on top of her, asking for "proof it's real", criticizing her for her source, and for not being able to "back up her argument." However when the roles are reversed, and a conservative does the exact same thing, then it's up to the person who disagrees or doesn't like the source to prove that it's not true. Personally, I don't like it from either side, and I would prefer that we were required to post from mainstream new sources only, simply because such a staggering number of the articles posted here from overly biased sources prove to be misleading, misrepresentative, or outright false with just a minimal amount of research. I'm much more conservative than I used to be, but i'll never be so conservative that i'll accept every article criticizing the left as fact without researching it, especially when a common sense look at the source would make it obvious that it's propaganda. And while Breitbart might be considered by some to be reputable, if they commonly repost from other sites like the one in this article, i'll never consider them to be credible.

the onus is on the person who posts the article to prove it's authenticity. it's funny how someone can post something on here from a questionable source, and then everyone slaps each other's back and agrees how great or awful it is (depending on who it criticizes), and when someone questions it, they're expected to prove it false, rather than the other way around. I had trouble reading the link that was posted in the breithbart article because of how poorly written it was, and how obvious of a hit piece it was, rather than an actual objective news story. I'm fairly certain a lot of folks on here just read the title to the threads, without ever reading the article, much less following the links to find the original story, and then form strong opinions on the issue. as for conservative view points, how about Texas' continued effort to purge the teaching of evolution in our schools?

well, it looked good at the time.

I've read enough of big girl's posts to state with certainty that there's no way they're the same person. Their posts don't read the same to me at all, and he'll actually concede a point from time to time, but the real clue is that he actually knows how to use the site's quote feature

It's been my experience that southern states do their best to infuse conservative view points into their teaching. Nothing more complicated than that. I read the link that breithbart referenced, and as best I could tell some of it WAS true, but a lot of it was fairly reasonable considering where it was being taught and who was teaching it. It was represented as a lot bigger deal than it should of been, and I must've missed the part about the genocide, which is certainly the most outrageous part of the story. I will admit it was poorly written and parts of came off as silly, so I read it quickly and without my full attention

Use it as your own, and enjoy it

Y'all don't have to believe me, and maybe it's been said somewhere before, but that's a bullets original

Oh, I don't think they'll accomplish anything by riling up the snowflakes, it's just going to be really annoying reading about it for the next two weeks

To me it's all about the person, and color of skin has nothing to do with it. I'm white, and married to a white woman, but if I were single I would have no qualms about dating someone from another race if I was attracted to them. I have a sister who was married to a Guatemalan, and he's about as good a guy as you'll ever know. They unfortunately divorced, but I never had a problem calling him family, and still have a friendly relationship with him. I also have several cousins who are or were in interracial relationships. One is in the national guard, and so is her husband. He's a big black guy from inner city Houston, and I'd do anything for him. Great guy. Another is engaged to a black man i haven't met (live in New Mexico), but by all accounts he's a stand up guy who takes care of her and her son. I have no issues with their relationship. On the other hand, I have a cousin who had a kid with a wannabe gangster who hasn't had much at all to do with her or the kid since. He's a douchebag, and I wouldn't pee on him if he was on fire (although I might if he wasn't). So yeah, like I said, I don't have a problem with any relationship, regardless of race, as long as it's a healthy relationship.

I'm with you 100% there, bud.

I consider any website questionable that takes articles from disreputable news sites and reports them as fact. Breithbart did it in this case. I don't have other examples of breithbart doing so, because I don't read it. That being said, out of my sample size of one, they're batting a thousand, so I'm assuming it's not an isolated incident. But to put it more simply, any time I see a site quote an article that I know fox on the right wouldn't quote, or that cnn on the left wouldn't quote, I don't trust that site. You'll see it all the time, from both sides. Csn quotes southern journalism quoting (insert other conservative propaganda site here), and all of a sudden it's "fact" because there are 20 propaganda sites sources running the story. IMO, If fox talks about it, there's something there. Just my opinion, but I've seen it happen enough that I'm comfortable voicing it.

It's a story from a questionable news site that has been taken from an even more questionable news site. Basically an ultra-conservative website wrote a fairly long opinion piece (with a few facts sprinkled in) about what a Chicago high school was teaching. Then another ultra-conservative sight took that piece and trimmed it down and reported it all as fact. While Chicago schools are in fact teaching very liberal things, what do you expect? it's a liberal district in a liberal city in a liberal state, with liberal leaders all the way from the schools up to the state government. Do you expect them to teach conservative values? Southern states are just as guilty of Chicago about shoving their ideals and ideologies onto their students through course work, the only difference is the right agrees with those so it's okay. I don't agree with one side or the other. I'd prefer that schools teach kids the subjects that they need to know to make it through college and into a career field, instead of school officials and teachers trying to indoctrinate their students with their own political beliefs.

I agree 100%. And I'm not referring to you, but to other comments I've read on various types of social media, when I say that the right is playing right into his hand. I've seen a lot of righties attacking his sexual orientation instead of acts, which were more than deserving of his original prison sentence. Based on what I've seen, the lefty media will have plenty of ammunition, which is a shame.

I've been dealing with it on facebook for three days. "We won when we played y'all". "At least we won a playoff game." (See your above post). "We made it as far as y'all". Etc. etc. etc. While all are true, they're all oversimplifications that don't take into account the fact that A) y'all beat us in a meaningless preseason game you backed into the playoffs in the worst division in the league, and then got to face a third string qb making his first career start and C) you wouldn't have even made the playoffs in the NFC

Multiple delusional Texans fans have referenced their "playoff win" and their preseason win over the cowboys as proof that they have a better team It's a shame that the biggest highlight of the Texans' season was the cowboys not advancing further than them in the playoffs.

Based on what I've figured out reading Facebook posts tonight... What Dallas fans are excited about at the end of the season: 1. Our rookie running back and quarterback look like franchise players 2. There was some improvement with the defense, and the state of our offense means we should get a lot of defensive help in the draft. 3. We won the division with a 13-3 record, and our rookie quarterback nearly led us to a win against an all-time great quarterback in his prime who's literally in the middle of the best 8-game stretch of his career. What texans fans are excited about at the end of the season: 1. Their second stringers beat Dallas' second stringers in a meaningless preseason game. 2. The Cowboys lost their playoff game.

Personally, I'm fine with this. I've seen people fill shopping carts with junk food and crap, and then pay with a lone star card. IMO, the purpose of government assistance is to help people survive, not to allow them to afford the expensive extras that they can't afford without it. I've seen people spend $40 on pizza with a lone star card, and I've seen them buy expensive seafood and high dollar steaks with lone star cards. This is not what tax dollars should be paying for. Basics like sandwich stuff, eggs, fruits, vegetables and milk, and inexpensive meals like Mac n cheese or ramen noodles is what should be bought. This service is to feed your family. My tax dollars paying for cokes and ice cream is the same as me buying someone's cigarettes and beer. I don't care if you drink or smoke, but you better be able to pay for it yourself. I feel the same way about non-essential food items. I'm all for feeding poor families, but if you want expensive, unhealthy food that you don't need to survive, get a job and pay for it yourself, and if you do have a job, and are supplemented by food stamps, rearrange your financial priorities to pay for those things if you "need" them that badly. If someone is on government assistance, and is allowed to spend that money any way they want, they have no real motivation to better their situation to afford those things.

While I understand the second point in your post, if you're okay relying on the government to stock your pantry, I think you are subject to any regulations they see fit to place on the money they're giving you for free.

[Hidden Content] your thoughts?

then he would've posted during a stretch of weather similar to stretches that we get multiple times every year. you know, as opposed to on the hottest day EVER for that particular day

that's correct. it just seemed like their doing so correlated with the change in the classification system.